The Instigator
notaparadox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion is unethical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,722 times Debate No: 123528
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (0)

 

notaparadox

Pro

To be clear, I am speaking strictly in the realm of ethics - not politics. I am undecided how abortion should be handled on a policy level, Though it should be carefully.

I will provide two examples.
1. Two consenting adults have sex and despite insert birth control method here conception is achieved. At this moment there is the start of a third human life. Before this moment human life could not occur, And after this moment human life is firmly set on a 9 month journey out of the womb. Human life does not begin with a fingernail or a heartbeat or a blastula, It only begins once, At conception.
This life, Like an infant, Has no power over whether or not it survives these early stages of life. It requires the support of its mother until birth. The mother and father of course know that pregnancy only comes about one way. And they both simultaneously signed the contract and rolled the dice. They knew what they signed up for yet shirk the consequences. The consequence being the start of a human life, Dying without the support from it's mother.

This is an example of how we often define life, Even human life, In a way that is convenient in the moment. If the consequences did not include a human life, There would be no controversy. And if the consequences included more immediately obvious results, Lets say for hypothetical sake a missile is launched at an orphanage each time birth control fails, Then again, There would be no controversy in how we should handle this topic.

Abortions are convenient in the 9 month to 18 year range, But they come at the cost of a potential human life and its included value. Furthermore this is a double standard in how we treat human life when it cannot fend for itself.

2.
A woman is raped and there is conception. In this case, Is abortion still unethical? Following the logic above, Abortion is the severing of a human life that cannot fend for itself. From this perspective, Two wrongs do not make a right and abortion is still unethical.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Con

1. Any action is morally neutral unless you give a reason for it to be considered either immoral or morally righteous. Your entire argument relies on the idea that abortion should be considered murder and a fetus should be considered a person from conception, But you have yet to demonstrate an argument for why having conception be the starting point for person-hood isn't just an arbitrary choice. What is your argument for conception being the point in which we consider something to be a person, In other words, What is your criteria for person-hood. I'm mainly asking to get a solid sense of your reasoning before I dispute your claim more actively.

2. In regards to the rape point lets say for arguments sake that conception is the only requirement person-hood, There are still arguments against your claim, Here is an analogy formalized by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson, I would recommend reading her "defense of abortion" as it brings up a lot of interesting moral arguments, Not all of which I agree with, But which are all definitely worth engaging with, I'll leave a link to it. The analogy goes like this, "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, And the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, And last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, So that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own, . The violinist had nothing to do with said actions and is a completely innocent party. You are now at the hospital and are presented with a choice, You can wait for 9 months until his kidney's begin functioning on their own again or you can unplug yourself but it will result in the death of the violinist. To wait for the 9 months would be a great act of kindness for sure but would you argue that unplugging yourself would be a moral wrong. I would argue no, As it fundamentally infringes on the persons right to bodily autonomy since you never consented to being connected in the first place. " The key here is that the violinists death is still a moral wrong in this scenario but the moral culpability for his death wouldn't fall on the person who was connected to them without their consent, It would fall upon the 3rd part who connected them in the first place. This analogy directly links to pregnancy in the case of rape, Where the woman in no way consented to becoming pregnant and instead had it forced upon her by the rapist, In this case, As I would argue in the case of the violinist, I would argue that the women would in fact be within her moral rights to have to have the abortion, And that while the death of the infant as an innocent party would be a moral wrong, The culpability of said moral wrong doing wouldn't be laid upon the woman, But instead it would be affixed to the rapist who created this immoral scenario in the first place.
Link:
https://spot. Colorado. Edu/~heathwoo/Phil160, Fall02/thomson. Htm
Debate Round No. 1
notaparadox

Pro

1. Exactly, There HAS to be a point in time/development when it is given moral value if we're speaking realistically because very few people would support a 7 or 8 month abortion. And I agree again that it should not be arbitrary. This is where people get confused because all times after conception are arbitrary by definition. Before conception there is no discussion. Realistically to be consistent you must either support abortion up until birth, Or no abortion at all. Most people are disgusted by the idea of a late stage abortion and should therefor be ethically anti-abortion.

2. I value potential human life. To end the potential of an entire human in order to avoid 9 months of pregnancy seems shortsighted and even wrong. That being said I understand the other side of this argument and the sensitivity of the topic. I personally could not judge someone who chose abortion over kindness in a situation where they were raped, Which is why I don't think it should be illegal on a policy level (that's as far as my stance goes. I don't think the government should be supporting it so much or even at all). All I can add here is that I know people who have not gotten the abortion and said it was the best choice of their life. People who've gotten it have said the same - the difference between the two is that one will never know for sure, And chose a likely shortsighted option.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Con

1. You still haven't really given me a reason for why conception should be where we apply person-hood, You more just kinda agreed that the space between conception and birth is nebulous. If we apply person-hood from conception we run into a couple really weird problems, 1 is the issue of miscarriages, While it seems most early term miscarriages are done to chromosomal abnormalities that may be unavoidable, There is some number of said early term miscarriages that happen because of neglect due to the fact that the mother is not yet even aware that she is pregnant, Would we consider this to be an immoral action on the mothers part? Should we morally enforce the idea that after every sexual encounter a woman engages in she is responsible for maximizing the chances of survival for a possible pregnancy that she may unknowingly have (even if she used contraception since they aren't always 100 percent successful), Would this be a reasonable expectation to put onto every woman who ever has a sexual encounter? My second issue is a problem of informed consent, Valuing the rights of potential people, And anti-natalism. The problem with considering the rights of a potential person who has yet to reach the point of having conscious experience, Is that it becomes hard to argue you can ever ethically bring a child into existence. This is because a potential person would be incapable of giving informed consent for being brought into a scenario where great suffering could occur to them. Here is an analogy to illustrate my point, Lets say we have 7 people standing outside a door who have no idea what is on the other side. Let's say that if they go through said door 5 of them will become billionaires and 2 of them will have an arm chopped off at random. We would argue that even if overall the people who entered the room would come out in a good state of well-being, In fact, A better state then when they had gone in, It would be immoral to have/allow those 7 people to go through that door because they were unaware of the risk they would be taking by going through, Meaning they would be incapable of giving the informed consent necessary to ethically allow them to go into the room. This problem of informed consent would now apply to potential people since we are considering their rights, Meaning that even if most people would be well off after coming into conscious existence, It would be unethical to bring them into existence because there is a possibility of extreme suffering, And they are incapable of giving the informed consent necessary to ethically allow the to "go through that door". I hope that makes sense. I would have the line for person-hood be drawn at when the fetus has developed to the point that it is now capable of conscious experience, Because it completely avoids said problem of considering the rights of potential unconscious people, And it seems like when we think of what a person is, You don't really think of DNA code as much as you think of a collection of experiences. This beginning of conscious experience seems to occur at about six months when the cerebral cortex of the brain begins to form so any abortion after that point would be considered immoral, And any abortion prior to that point would be moral, (I'll link article talking about this in the comments if it works).

2. From your last argument and your post in the comments, It seems like you think it is morally permissible to have an abortion in the case of rape, But that it would be a moral kindness towards the unborn child if someone did decide to go to term with the pregnancy (let me know if I'm incorrect with this reading of your claims). I pretty much agree with this point, But I do have issues with some of your argument. "All I can add here is that I know people who have not gotten the abortion and said it was the best choice of their life. People who've gotten it have said the same " the difference between the two is that one will never know for sure, And chose a likely shortsighted option. " This is incorrect, Neither will ever know for sure if they had been happier if they made the other choice unless they could go back in time and make the opposite choice to see how things would have turned out. The people you know who have kids absolutely do not know if they might have been happier if they had gotten an abortion, They can't, They can know that they are happy with the choice they made, But they have no idea where they may have ended up if they had chosen differently. It's possible that by having an abortion they may have had more time to put into a certain passion, Become more successful then they currently are, And then still decided to later have kids. I would caution against these kinds of claims, Because they don't really logically follow.
Debate Round No. 2
notaparadox

Pro

1. You keep saying person-hood which I'm not sure is a very clear or accurate term here. Though if you push the semantics then I do consider a fertilized egg a "person" because there isn't a better term for that level of generality for a creature that will or does have it's own individual experience. There are real implementations of this idea in current law. For example in 38 states the unborn child is considered a victim in murder/manslaughter etc and further charges are applied.

Your first argument is odd because it does not factor in knowing whether or not you are pregnant. IF you think there may have been conception/signs of pregnancy/positive pregnancy test then YES doing something that you know may harm the fetus would be unethical if you believe unborn humans have value. There are plenty of laws supporting this idea as well. I'm not appealing to these laws - I bring them up because I agree with their intentions and believe we are not acting according to the conclusion of these values.

To be clear NO I do not believe people should be charged for smoking or drinking after having sex. I think morning after type pills are unethical and should be banned. Just keep having sex and using protection as best you can. You know the consequences. This is real life. If you think you might be pregnant then find out whether or not you're pregnant!

Here is my response to your "door" hypothetical. I don't see why the number of doors matters.
Anyway I think most humans are overall glad that they were born otherwise we would have a lot more suicides and a lot less hope and progress. Would you prefer a dice roll where life never existed? How many people do you know how believe that? That would be the logical conclusion and I think most people would find it too nihilistic. You cannot value a collection of experiences if you don't value the potential to collect them. . .

The formation of the cerebral cortex of every animal has already begun at conception. DNA has begun its function. It won't NOT create a cerebral cortex assuming it gets a fair shot. In every moment it is getting closer to achieving a body capable of thriving in this mortal plane.
Cerebral cortex or point of observable consciousness is far more arbitrary than conception because consciousness only has one original causal effect - conception. You can't see the forest for the trees the way I see it.

2. I said that I could not personally judge them. I still believe it is unethical compared to the other option even for some practical reasons. The clearest way I can put it is that I can't be sure that a person who was raped and got an abortion is making a bad decision. I believe it's really complicated and more of a grey area than consensual sex.

Back to regular case abortion:
There's no need to caution me on the claim because it does logically follow according to math and the conclusion of most people's values and maybe your own. I only sound like I overgeneralized because I didn't introduce adoption as the obvious and perfect option here. You don't have to raise the kid you know. . . Women survive pregnancy all the time without it ruining nine months of their lives. Adoption systems need help in many ways but even with the current system I still don't see how nine months of pregnancy + a human is worse than no pregnancy and a human who didn't get a fair shot. Overpopulation is not a good argument against this because as culture develops the rate of offspring declines. Furthermore children are often adopted up into higher economic classes that produce less offspring than lower economic classes.
Phil-E-CheeseSteak

Con

1. My bad, I didn't realize I hadn't clarified what I meant by the term person-hood adequately enough. When I use the term person-hood I'm specifically referring to the state of being that gives something the kind of moral consideration and rights we assign to people, You could also describe it as the question of what makes something a "human life" as opposed to how we consider a cell to be "alive" but don't assign it rights. "There are real implementations of this idea in current law. For example in 38 states the unborn child is considered a victim in murder/manslaughter etc and further charges are applied. " I don't really care about what the law says right now because we're talking purely in the realm of philosophy, And trying to base what is moral on what is currently legal has a significant number of issues, Via this argument people could argue that having slaves was moral in the 1820's because it was legal at the time. Still to address said claim, The pragmatic reason this law exists the way it does is probably based on the assumption that the murdered victim was planning to go to term with their pregnancy, Though even then I think I would argue that this law probably shouldn't exist in this way if we don't consider a fetus to have person-hood until 6-months in order to remain morally consistent.
2. "Your first argument is odd because it does not factor in knowing whether or not you are pregnant. IF you think there may have been conception/signs of pregnancy/positive pregnancy test then YES doing something that you know may harm the fetus would be unethical if you believe unborn humans have value. " The whole point of that argument was that it wouldn't matter whether or not you had noticed any signs you were pregnant, Any time you have sex there is a possibility for conception even if there wasn't any immediate signs, So every time a woman had sex, She would be morally responsible for maximizing for the chances of her possible unborn child, And I would argue that this is a pretty extreme moral burden to put on an individual, Though this argument may be more built towards addressing the pragmatism of illegalizing abortion from conception then it does the ethical aspect. "To be clear NO I do not believe people should be charged for smoking or drinking after having sex. " Would you argue this action would be unethical though? It seems like you would have to based on your criteria even if pragmatically you don't think people should be charge for said action.

3. "Here is my response to your "door" hypothetical. I don't see why the number of doors matters.
Anyway I think most humans are overall glad that they were born otherwise we would have a lot more suicides and a lot less hope and progress. Would you prefer a dice roll where life never existed? How many people do you know how believe that? That would be the logical conclusion and I think most people would find it too nihilistic. You cannot value a collection of experiences if you don't value the potential to collect them" Ok first, There was only one door in my hypothetical, I feel like you may have misunderstood it and would recommend you reread it, The argument was that it doesn't matter whether or not people are happy they were born, Just like it wouldn't matter whether or not the majority of the 7 people were happy they had gone through the door, Because in both cases there is a possibility of severe suffering and in both cases the people involved haven't given informed consent, For the people at the door this is because they haven't been made aware of what is behind the door, And for the unborn child who has yet to have a conscious experience because they are incapable of giving informed consent to be brought into conscious experience. The problem with valuing potential is that you have to draw an arbitrary line of what potential we value, An egg and sperm both have the potential to become a person, Why isn't it immoral to allow them to expire? Once you begin valuing potential people you run into a in-numerous amount of issues.

4. DNA isn't really how we would measure what is assigned person-hood, A dead body has human DNA, A human cell has human DNA. My example for why it seems we value conscious experience as the measurement for what we assign with person-hood would be the fact that we consider a brain dead body to be medically dead and no longer give it the same moral consideration we do non-brain dead people despite the fact that it may have still working organs and human DNA. It is the ability to have conscious experience that we fundamentally value in what makes a person a person, Now the potential to develop that conscious experience is also important, But not as the factor of what assigns something with person-hood, Just as a prerequisite, Similarly to how having code may be a prerequisite to being a video game, But it isn't the fundamental factor that makes something a video game. Also, Your cerebral cortex starts developing from conception in the same was your fingernails do, Yah the process that will eventual get to the formation of these body parts has begun, But the formation of those specific parts absolutely has not, The only reason I care when this part specifically starts forming is that it seems to signify the beginning of the fetus having an experience as we know it, Which is what I argue is the necessary factor to assign person-hood.

5. "I said that I could not personally judge them. I still believe it is unethical compared to the other option even for some practical reasons. The clearest way I can put it is that I can't be sure that a person who was raped and got an abortion is making a bad decision. I believe it's really complicated and more of a grey area than consensual sex. " If you say it is unethical, You are personally judging people who get an abortion in the case of rape, There is no getting around that if you wanna call the act immoral you have to bite that bullet. When you say it's complicated and morally grey it sounds like your conflicted on whether or not you think this action would be unethical because you recognize how uncomfortable it is to apply the moral responsibility of having to sustain a life that has been connected to you against your will. This of course understandable because as, You said, It seems to exist in a complicated morally grey area. My point is that all moral responsibility for the situation lies on the original perpetrator who created the immoral scenario in the first place, In the case of a rape this would be the rapist.

6. My caution wasn't against making a claim about whether abortion or not was ethical, It was specifically in reference to this point, "All I can add here is that I know people who have not gotten the abortion and said it was the best choice of their life. People who've gotten it have said the same - the difference between the two is that one will never know for sure, And chose a likely shortsighted option. ", Because it's not true that only one of these people will never know for sure, Both of them won't because as I argued, "The people you know who have kids absolutely do not know if they might have been happier if they had gotten an abortion, They can't, They can know that they are happy with the choice they made, But they have no idea where they may have ended up if they had chosen differently. It's possible that by having an abortion they may have had more time to put into a certain passion, Become more successful then they currently are, And then still decided to later have kids. ". But at the end at the day these are anecdotes and don't really matter to the greater argument, I just had a problem with the way you framed that point. I don't know why you brought up over population, I would never use that as an argument and the adoption point doesn't really matter because my argument is that abortion would be a completely morally neutral action until the emergence of conscious experience at 6-months.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 year ago
John_C_1812_II
Just something to consider. How old is term Pregnancy abortion?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 1 year ago
John_C_1812_II
@notapardox
The abortion argument is not a strawman argument. The reasons why a woman can simply make a claim that she is intending to stop the immigration into the country, Or international territory she is located in. Not make a public claim on immunity for a decision to display authority over lethal force. An accident is a child dies as a result of complicated immigration issues. The accident is intentional when the woman is told she is to take control over her body.

There are several things that are not considered in most female specific amputation debates. 1. In a world that would include space travel a limit on population is more than likely and necessary. 2. In a world of population explosions a need to reduce children exists as a necessity.

All woman are created equal by their creator.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
I'll respond to your other points later, I need to get back to finals. Feel free to address any problems you have with my argument, Just please don't leave to many more comments for me to respond to. I still haven't had the chance to go through all the one's you already posted yet.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
1. "Here is my response to your "door" hypothetical. I don't see why the number of doors matters. "
If you knew the number of doors in my hypothetical, Then why did you ask about the number mattering, I never put any attention to the number of doors, So it seemed like you somehow misread my hypothetical? Also every time you engage with this argument, You say the hypothetical is worthless, But it's not, If we are giving rights to potential people, We have to consider all their rights, It doesn't matter if that implication makes you uncomfortable you have to address it instead of just ignoring it since it seems like you just don't have any answers to the issues with what yo are choosing to value.
2. All pragmatic arguments are based off of theoretical frameworks, You need to argue the theoretical in order to have a solid standing for your pragmatic claims, Otherwise you have no bases.
3. My entire point is that we are currently discussing whether whether or not we out to value potential life, So just saying that one of societies underlying values is potential life is circular/tautological, Since my claim is that we, As a society, Shouldn't value that when it comes to considering what makes something a person. You have to present an argument for why we should while defending against my criticisms, But instead you just ignore them and call them useless because they are to "theoretical" when half of philosophical discussion is about the theoretical.
4. My point was that the second claim of straw manning isn't straw manning. It could still be a valid criticism, It's just not straw manning, You had an issue with the validity of my comparison, Which is fine, You can argue its an invalid comparison, But not that it was me straw manning you. The DNA point was me straw manning you, Because I was actively arguing against a weaker form of your claims, Which was absolutely my bad, I misread earlier claims you had made.
Posted by notaparadox 1 year ago
notaparadox
and still no since we have not yet developed pregnancy esp you should just find out whether or not your pregnant sometime after sex. Trust me people usually figure it out pretty fast. Testing will get better too. Do your best to find out if your pregnant if you have sex it's pretty simple

replying to most recent post
This is another poor hypothetical because the conception is thoughtless. People use birth control to prevent conception all the time. It's because it's a big responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Breeding a trillion humans into existence in a lab isn't ethical for a lot of reasons I know you're smart enough to point out. Breeding one child in a lab and giving it to a couple who has trouble conceiving is different. The gradient/hierarchy/complex of values is so much more intricate than you give it credit for
Posted by notaparadox 1 year ago
notaparadox
ok i'm replying to that
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
"A sperm and egg have a virtually 0% chance of creating conscious life. A healthy fertilized egg has a very good chance of living a human life longer than both of its parents. Remember what I said about applying reason? Denying these kinds of contrasts is cognitive dissonance. "
So, I do recognize there is a difference here, But the difference isn't that there is not potential for a sperm and egg to develop into a person, That's not true they just require assistance in the form of coming into contact with each other, The same way a zygote only has potential if given assistance from the mothers body to develop into a conscious being, Lets say we fertilize an egg outside of a body in a laboratory dish, This zygote would have the same level of "potential" for further development as the egg and sperm before they join together. Would you argue that we would then be morally required to further this fertilized eggs development by find a woman to implant it in because it had been conceived and deserved to live. If yes, Then how would you argue that the egg and sperm are any less worthy of being given the chance to continue development by being brought together, The only difference in this case being that the sperm an egg both only contain half the DNA code of the fertilized egg?
Posted by notaparadox 1 year ago
notaparadox
Alright here we go one message.

I DID KNOW THE NUMBER OF DOORS LMAO MY POINT WAS YOUR HYPOTHETICAL WAS WORTHLESS AND MADE LITTLE SENSE. PLEASE RE-READ THE POST WITH THIS NEW UNDERSTANDING.

I try to have useful discussions not just theoretical debates. Theoretical debates are all but theoretically useless. I did mention society's values but I'm not sure we're on the same page as far as what you mean by "current" or "values" or "appeal".

I can't think of a civilization or society where the people who were taken advantage of the most wouldn't describe their experience as awful and violating their liberties as an individual. There is something vague and universal at hand that people have to grant each other before any honest or fruitful conversation can occur. I am not appealing to "societies current values", I'm saying that without acknowledging these underlying values that bubble up as, FOR EXAMPLE, Laws and cultural norms the discussion is useless!

You said appealing to things like personal liberties stemming from being a biological animal with consciousness is an appeal to authority (should google that fallacy I guess) and that I need to display WHY a value SHOULD be held. Which is kind of hilarious by itself. But really you keep bringing it back to a hypothetical personal perspective (or your own) that is completely abstract and metaphysical. DON'T START REPLYING YET. I'm a broken record at this point but yes you can invent a position to be consistent with and justify any action. But people don't usually have those values because people don't just go around choosing what they value. Many of them are ingrained deeply. At least you acknowledged the first time you straw manned me but you don't understand the second time I used it is because you're basically straw manning these exact values that I'm almost positive you hold yourself. A unborn fetus' ability to consent is worthless (especially since it can't) compared to its potential wellbeing as a develop
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
"My issue with the hypothetical is that it was a very round about way of appealing to futility. I did read it. A fertilized egg is worth more than a egg or sperm because the fertilized egg now has a very long life span and very large potential for wellbeing. This seems pretty obvious. This argument feels like a massive straw man. A sperm and egg have a virtually 0% chance of creating conscious life. A healthy fertilized egg has a very good chance of living a human life longer than both of its parents. Remember what I said about applying reason? Denying these kinds of contrasts is cognitive dissonance. "

If you understood my argument the first time you read it, Why did you think there was more then 1 door and why didn't you address the issue it brought up with your argument. You also still haven't addressed why your argument doesn't lead to anti-natalism based on how we value informed consent when bringing people into potentially dangerous situations, You only said that "I think most humans are overall glad that they were born otherwise we would have a lot more suicides and a lot less hope and progress. " which isn't an argument against my claim because, As I formalized in my last argument "The argument was that it doesn't matter whether or not most people are happy they were born, Just like it wouldn't matter whether or not the majority of the 7 people were happy they had gone through the door, Because in both cases there is a possibility of severe suffering and in both cases the people involved haven't given informed consent, For the people at the door this is because they haven't been made aware of what is behind the door, And for the unborn child who has yet to have a conscious experience because they are incapable of giving informed consent to be brought into conscious experience. " You also used straw man incorrectly here, Which is weird because you use it correctly later, Your issue here is that you disagree with the validity of my comparison not a straw man.
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 1 year ago
Phil-E-CheeseSteak
"Yes I would argue that having lots of sex and doing lots of drinking and drugs is a fairly unethical way to live for many reasons. Pretty unhealthy for yourself and anyone around you. No you don't need pregnancy ESP to smoke a cigarette after having sex though. Act within reason. Yes that sounds vague but it is another human value that is found everywhere in culture and law. And again this is not an appeal. This is using examples to illustrate people's values and where they are acting consistently and inconsistently. " My whole point is that if conception is the point in which we value something as a person, Then any time after sex you would absolutely be morally responsible for maximizing for the chances of their possible child's survival, You can't not bite that bullet, After any sexual activity there is a chance that conception has occurred, People know this, So in order to consistently work within your ethical perimeters the mother would have to take on responsibility for the possible lose of life for the possible unborn child they are carrying if said lose of life is avoidable. Your right that your argument does sound vague, Because it doesn't logically follow unless you except the existence of said moral responsibility, Saying that it is a human value, But then not backing it up with an argument and just saying that it is "found everywhere in culture and law", Is absolutely an appeal, Your appealing to societal values again instead of making the argument for why society should value it in the first place. Appealing to the values of other people doesn't work when your having a debate on what people should value, You would have to show specifically why my argument is logically flawed and address why the flaws I bring up with your argument is logically invalid.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.